The board’s discussion of the Historic Preservation Plan centered on establishing a clear direction for preserving the town’s historical integrity. The plan emphasized actionable goals and strategies for the historical commission and the town, with a phased approach for action steps. Feedback from the historical commission highlighted the importance of attainable priorities, with an emphasis on stakeholder outreach and alignment with state and federal preservation planning recommendations. The planning process considered the formation of subcommittees to aid in the implementation of the preservation plan, which includes a variety of initiatives such as barn tours, public engagement, and updating of inventory forms for properties, including midcentury modern homes and outbuildings.

In the realm of housing, the meeting delved into the concept of a housing overlay zone on University Drive. Members debated the current regulations’ potential limitations on development and discussed the possibility of a more flexible approach to permit greater housing density, particularly to accommodate students. There were differing opinions on whether the district should be designated specifically for student housing and concerns about the potential impact on the area’s demographic mix.

The board tackled the issue of community involvement in the planning process, with some advocating for more direct engagement with the area’s stakeholders. The method of public engagement was also addressed, with suggestions to utilize Zoom to facilitate wider participation. The potential for mixed-use development on University Drive, including the integration of commercial spaces on the ground floors of buildings, was discussed as a means to balance density with street vitality.

Further discussions regarding downtown design standards revealed frustration among some members concerning the time and financial resources spent on the development process. The board considered the need for more public outreach and the possibility of involving the community in the decision-making process. There were also suggestions to involve the public through press releases and in-person meetings, with concerns raised about the planning department’s capacity to handle the additional workload.

Housing issues were a recurring theme throughout the meeting, with members discussing the importance of stabilizing neighborhoods and creating a diverse mix of residents in terms of economic status and life stage. The idea of forming a housing subcommittee was introduced to focus on the work done on housing issues and to bring recommendations to the full planning board. The Amherst Housing Trust’s ongoing action planning process, which focuses on housing production, fundraising, and public outreach, was highlighted for its complementary nature to the board’s discussions.

The board also reviewed the progress of the town’s housing production plan, including plans to hire a consultant to update information on housing characteristics and the need for affordable housing. The formation of a housing subcommittee was contemplated to concentrate on housing issues and possibly make action recommendations. A motion to start the housing subcommittee was approved.

A letter addressing the need for more housing on University Drive sparked debate among members regarding the appropriate approach to communicating with the University of Massachusetts about housing issues. There was discussion about whether the letter should be sent to the university chancellor or used to form a constituency to present concerns to the town manager. The decision on how to proceed with the letter remained unresolved.